Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The facts constituting the instant summary order include the violation of the code of practice of a business operator who allowed drinking to customers even though the Defendant was a resting restaurant business operator. However, the prosecutor revoked the prosecution against the above facts constituting the crime and dismissed the prosecution on August 23, 2017.

The defendant shall report to the Minister of Food and Drug Safety or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, a branch office of the Food and Drug Safety or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, if there is a change in the area of the place of business, and shall operate the business.

Nevertheless, on September 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily expanded the area of a place of business of approximately 32 square meters in addition to the area of a place of business of approximately 49.5 square meters, which was first reported to the Mayor of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. A letter of confirmation of facts of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation book, field photograph, certificate of business report, and ledger of management of permission for food entertainment business (report);

1. In light of the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts and Articles 97 subparag. 1 and 37 subparag. 4 of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016), the indictment for the modification of the indictment is written as Article 37 subparag. 4, and the application for the modification of the indictment is written as Article 37 subparag. 3, but the prosecutor stated at the first trial date that the application for the modification of the indictment is to revoke the prosecution against the violation of the business operator’s obligation, it is clear that the “Article 37 subparag. 3” of the application for the modification of the indictment is a clerical error in the “Article 37 subparag. 4”.

(Selection of Penalty)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Provisional Payment Order violates the Food Sanitation Act due to a business operator’s violation of the code of practice among the facts charged in the instant case.